![]() |
||||||
|
SHAKSPER 1996: Shrew in Performance
From: Hardy M. Cook (hmcook@boe00.minc.umd.edu) Date: 03/05/96
Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 7, No. 0169. Tuesday, 5 March 1996. From: Robert Appelbaum <app3500@uclink.berkeley.edu> Date: Tuesday, 5 Mar 1996 10:46:32 -0800 (PST) Subject: Shrew in Performance The African American Shakespeare Company is currently staging _Shrew_ in San Francisco at the Next Stage Theatre, in rep with a multicultural _Merchant_ staged by Second Wind Productions. I haven't seen either yet, and they are only running for a couple of more weeks, but _Shrew_ received a favorable review in the Feb. 28 San Francisco Bay Guardian, which can be accessed on-line, I believe, at http://www.sfbayguardian.com. The reviewer, Dennis Harvey, raises an interesting question over and above his admiration for this particular performance. "Ask what this area needs, theater programming-wise, and 'more Shakespeare' would not likely appear at the top of anyone's list.... The summertime Shakespeare glut [in the Bay Area] is so thick by now that I groan whenever the Bard turns up 'off-season.'" One worries whether the profusion of Shakespearean performances in the Bay Area and elsewhere -- often by acting companies whose personnel are insufficiently trained and experienced in Shakespeare, although that's another matter -- doesn't also mask the dearth of contemporary theater here and elsewhere. Not that people in the theater aren't trying; but the economics of theater today may such that the only way to encourage new playwrights and the performance of new plays at the professional level, especially to provide new playwrights and directors with the continued experience in the theater they would need in order to perfect their skills, would be to provide considerably more government funding than is likely to come forth these days. The performance of Shakespeare, whether straight or in drag (as it were), may be to theater what the performance of Mozart and Beethoven is to symphonic music. One doesn't object to it; one encourages it; it seems to be necessary to the culture of performers and performances. But one worries about our lack of support (in places like the Bay Area at least) for new theater, in spite of the fact that there is a lot of _desire_ for new theater, in spite of the many financial sacrifices that people in the theater are often willing to make in order to provide for it, and in spite of the many low-budget experiments that in fact find their way into performance. I'm wondering if people in academic and theater communities elsewhere would be willing to comment on this situation. And P.S., when I refer to "new theater," I don't mean David Mamet or Tony Kushner, much as I admire the work of both playwrights, and am happy to attend a performance of any of their plays whenever I can. I mean precisely all those other playwrights who are not breaking through to the professional stage, and who are not being given a chance to develop their skills _in_ the theater. Is it perhaps the case that we need "Shakespeare" these days (along with, say, Mamet and Stoppard and Kushner) in order to garner the support of a theatergoing public and especially the support of subsidies from private foundations and government agencies? Just asking. But no, I will probably not be satisfied with answers concerning how "vital" regional theater happens to in any particular Podunk, or how such and such a place (e.g. Louisville) holds a two-week festival for new plays. If these are exceptions to the rule, they also prove the rule. In the U.S. at least, it seems to me, the real issue seems to me to be how we can do the impossible, increase rather than decrease the funding of the National Endowment for the Arts, and earmark increased funds for theatrical experimentation -- for theater which doesn't rely on the Bard as an excuse for existing. Robert Appelbaum
|
|
|||||